MindMySkin Protocol Plans 690-Participant Economic Evaluation
The protocol establishes how MindMySkin's economic value will be tested against an active wellness app, not that it improves health, lowers costs, or is cost-effective.
Evidence
MindMySkin is being tested against Healthy365, a general-wellness app, but its economic-evaluation protocol does not yet show whether it improves health outcomes or offers better value. Published September 29, 2026, the MindMySkin economic-evaluation protocol is a study plan, not a completed outcome report. This is a single-study report.
The trial targets 690 participants across three outpatient dermatology centers in Singapore. Eligible participants are English-speaking, aged 16 years or older, and have psoriasis, eczema, or chronic urticaria—chronic hives. Recruitment had begun, with 46 participants enrolled as of June 2026; that figure is not an October enrollment update.
Participants are assigned by chance in a 2:1 ratio: two to MindMySkin for every one to Healthy365. Follow-up is scheduled for 32 weeks. MindMySkin aims to address psychological and behavioral factors related to symptom burden in chronic inflammatory skin disease.
The economic evaluation is a planned secondary analysis within the trial. It will use skin-disease-specific quality-of-life measures and health utility, a measure used to value health states in economic comparisons. Its main perspective is the health care system. A sensitivity analysis—testing whether conclusions change under alternative assumptions—will also consider a broader societal perspective.
Analysis
Interpretation: Comparing MindMySkin with an active wellness app makes the question whether it offers added value over another digital intervention, rather than over no app. That is a feature of the study design, not evidence of added benefit.
Measuring both costs and health outcomes can support a more informative value assessment than measuring either alone. However, neither the comparator nor the planned measurements establish that MindMySkin will improve quality of life, reduce spending, or justify its costs. There is no second study here providing corroboration.
Limitations
No completed comparative effect estimates or statistical uncertainty ranges are reported. The target sample size and follow-up schedule are design parameters, not observed treatment outcomes.
Self-reported health care use may be misremembered, potentially affecting cost estimates. The 32-week horizon limits assessment of longer-term costs and outcomes. Effectiveness under trial conditions could also exceed effectiveness in everyday use. These are constraints on interpreting eventual results, not evidence that MindMySkin lacks value.
What to watch
The protocol plans to examine uncertainty through repeated resampling of the data, changes in assumptions, subgroup analyses, and alternative scenarios. These analyses will matter only once comparative outcomes are available.
The result that would change confidence is a completed 32-week comparison reporting differences between the apps in costs, skin-specific quality of life, and health utility, with uncertainty ranges and an assessment of whether the economic conclusion changes under the broader societal perspective.